http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1493 of 2004

PETITIONER: Ram Badan Sharma

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/2006

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.333 OF 2005. Surya Kant Sharma                       ....            Appellant                 Versus State of Bihar                          ....            Respondent

DALVEER BHANDARI, J.         These appeals are directed against the judgment of  the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No.64 of  2002.         Brief facts of this case are as follows:

       On 20th November 1993, at 4.30 p.m., the brother of  the deceased Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, PW2 filed a  written complaint at the Police Station Chandi alleging  that his sister Sanju Kumari (who was married in the  year 1989) was poisoned by her husband Surya Kant  Sharma, her father-in-law Ram Badan Sharma and  mother-in-law Saraswati Devi.  It was also alleged that at  the time of marriage, Surya Kant Sharma, Ram Badan  Sharma and Saraswati Devi demanded a colour TV,  Yamaha motor-cycle and cash of Rs.20,000/-.  The  informant and his family could not fulfill their dowry  demands.  The customary ’Durgaman’ (second marriage)  had taken place on 26.10.1993 and at that time, the  same demands were repeated by the accused persons.   

       In the report, it was also mentioned that on  17.11.1993, brother-in-law of the deceased (sister’s  husband) Ramakant Chaudhary, PW1, visited Lodipur on  the request of the deceased’s mother to meet the  deceased.  The accused persons told PW1 that no one  would be permitted to meet Sanju Kumari unless their  dowry demands are fulfilled by the parents of the  deceased.  On persuasion for sometime, he was permitted  to meet Sanju Kumari.  She wept before him and  narrated that she was harassed and tortured by the  accused persons for not getting motor-cycle, colour TV  and Rs.20,000/- from her parents.  On return from the  house of the deceased, PW1 narrated to his mother-in- law and brother-in-law the entire story of harassment of  the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of dowry  demands.  It is further stated in the report that only after  a few hours, on the intervening night of 17th and 18th of  November, poison was administered to the deceased in  the ’Prasad’ and consequently she died.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

       On 20.11.1993, a Barber from Lodipur brought a  letter which disclosed that Sanju Kumari had died on the  intervening night of 17/18.11.1993.  The informant  rushed to the village Lodipur where he came to know that  the accused persons had killed his sister by  administering poison to her.     The FIR was filed at the  Chandi Police Station by the brother of the deceased.  On  completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer  submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons  Surya Kant Sharma and Ram Badan Sharma.  The case  was committed to the Court of Sessions.  Initially, no  charge-sheet was filed against Saraswati Devi, mother-in- law of the deceased.  However, after examination of the  witnesses, Saraswati Devi was also summoned by the  Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial.

       The accused persons denied the allegations and a  defence was taken that Sanju Kumari had died due to  stomach pain.  It was alleged on behalf of the defence  that she complained of stomach pain on 16.11.1993 and  that she was taken to the clinic where she was treated by  Dr. K.N. Singh and Dr. B.K. Jain.  It was also stated that  the informant and his relatives attended the ’Shradh’ of  Sanju Kumari.  The informant wanted to get back all the  ornaments given to Sanju Kumari at the time of her  marriage but when the accused persons did not agree,  this false case was filed against them.  It was also  asserted that during the relevant period, Saraswati Devi  was under treatment at Calcutta.                  The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely,  Ramakant Chaudhary PW1, brother-in-law of the  deceased, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary PW2, brother of  the deceased, who proved the FIR (Ext.1), Gautam  Chaudhary PW3, the cousin of the deceased, Malti Devi  PW4, mother of the deceased.  Malti Devi proved one  letter (Ext.2) written by the deceased Sanju Kumari to  her.  In the letter, she wrote that she was facing  harassment and humiliation by the accused persons  because their demands for dowry had not been fulfilled.   Anita Devi, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased was  examined as PW5.  All these witnesses had supported the  case of the prosecution.  Pawan Kumar Singh, Assistant  Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Amash, District  Gaya, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, was  examined as PW6.   

       On behalf of the defence, five witnesses were  examined.  Sudama Singh DW1 and Ram Chhabila Singh  DW2 were examined to support the defence version.  Dr.  B.K. Jain DW3 proved medical certificates dated  15.11.1993 and 16.11.1993.  Jagat Narayan Singh DW4,  a Public Relation Inspector of post office Arrah brought  one register of Kisan Vikas Patra.  Accused Ram Badan  Sharma was examined as DW5.  He proved the signature  of Sanju on the application brought by DW4 from the  post office.

       Careful analysis of the evidence by the trial court  led to a clear conclusion that the marriage of the accused  Surya Kant Sharma was solemnized with the deceased in  1989 and the deceased died suddenly on the intervening  night of 17/18.11.1993 in unnatural circumstances  within seven years of the marriage.           

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

       On the basis of evidence on record, we are called  upon to adjudicate following questions:  (I)     Whether the prosecution was able to  prove the demands of dowry?

(II)    Whether the deceased had died because  of harassment and cruelty meted out at  the hands of the accused persons in  connection with the demands of dowry?

(III)   Whether the death had occurred within  seven years of the marriage?

       The informant, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary PW2  brother of the deceased, in his statement categorically  stated that at the time of marriage of the deceased, the  accused persons demanded a colour TV, Yamaha motor- cycle and a sum of Rs.20,000/- and because of the  financial inability, the dowry demands of the accused  persons could not be fulfilled.  He further stated that on  26.10.1993, when the deceased was sent to her in-laws  at Lodipur, same demands of dowry articles were  repeated.  He had also stated in his statement that his  brother-in-law, the accused Surya Kant Sharma was not  willing to take his sister (the deceased) back to her  matrimonial home for the want of dowry but on the  request and persuasion of the family members of the  deceased, the accused ultimately took Sanju Kumari  back on 26.10.1993.  PW2 further stated in his  statement that the brother-in-law of the deceased,  Ramakant Chaudhary, went to meet the deceased at  Lodipur on 17.11.1993 on the request of his mother-in- law.  On return, Ramakant informed them that the  deceased’s husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law  demanded same dowry articles and threatened that in  case, dowry articles were not given,  they would kill  Sanju (deceased).  He further stated that they received  the news of the death of Sanju Kumari from a Barber  after three days of the death i.e. on 20.11.1993.  The  informant Chandra Bhushan, Ramakant, Gautam  Chaudhary and few villagers went to Lodipur, where they  were informed that Sanju Kumari was poisoned by Surya  Kant Sharma, Ram Badan Sharma and Saraswati Devi.   In the cross-examination, he again reiterated that there  was demand of colour TV, Yamaha motor-cycle and  Rs.20,000/- when Ramakant PW2 had gone to meet the  deceased Sanju on 17.11.1993.  

       The prosecution had examined Ramakant  Chaudhary, brother-in-law of the deceased (sister’s  husband) as PW1.  He categorically stated that on the  request of his mother-in-law, he had gone to the house of  the deceased Sanju on 17.11.1993.  At that time, Surya  Kant Sharma and his father Ram Badan Sharma were  present in the house.  They clearly stated that nobody  would be allowed to meet Sanju unless the demands of  colour TV, motor-cycle and cash amount of Rs.20,000/-  were fulfilled by the parents of Sanju.  PW1 explained the  position and on persuasion, ultimately he was allowed to  meet Sanju (deceased). Sanju Kumari wept before him  and asked him to go and ask her father to send a colour  TV and a motor-cycle.  He returned and narrated the  entire story to his brother-in-law Chandra Bhushan PW2  and his mother-in-law Malti Devi PW4.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

       PW2 also stated about demands of dowry and  specifically named the accused persons.  He also stated  that he received the news of death of his sister from a  Barber on 20.11.1993.  Immediately thereafter, he along  with others left for Lodipur village.  There, people  informed that his sister was killed by administering  poison to her by the accused persons.  

       Gautam Chaudhary was also examined by the  prosecution as PW3.  He stated that the deceased was his  cousin.  He categorically stated that the deceased’s  husband and in-laws demanded motor-cycle and an  amount of Rs.20,000/-.  He further stated that the  treatment given to the deceased by her husband and in- laws was not good. On 26.10.1993, on persuasion from  all of them, the husband of the deceased had taken the  deceased.  He further informed that on 20.11.1993, he  got the information that Sanju Devi was killed by  administering poison to her by her husband, mother-in- law and father-in-law.

       The prosecution also examined Malti Devi, mother  of the deceased as PW4.  She also reiterated that at the  time of marriage, accused persons Surya Kant Sharma,  Ram Badan Sharma and Saraswati Devi demanded a  colour TV, motor-cycle and a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  She  further stated in her statement that after a week of  marriage, the deceased returned from her in-laws house  and she informed that she was beaten by her mother-in- law, father-in-law and husband for not bringing the  colour TV, motor-cycle and a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  She  also stated that after a lot of persuasion, her daughter  was taken back by her in-laws on 26.10.1993.  She  further stated that the accused persons tortured her for  not bringing dowry articles.  She also stated that her  elder son-in-law Ramakant Chaudhary was sent to the  house of Sanju to enquire about her welfare.  She further  stated in her statement that initially the accused did not  allow Ramakant to meet Sanju but after some  persuasion, Ramakant was permitted to meet her.  The  deceased told Ramakant that she was being tortured in  different ways by the accused persons for not bringing  the dowry articles.  Accused persons also threatened to  kill her in case she failed to bring the dowry articles.   

       On 20.11.1993, a Barber came from Lodipur to her  house and informed that Sanju had died.  Immediately  thereafter, her son Chandra Bhushan PW2, Ramakant  Chaudhary PW1, Gautam PW3 and few villagers went to  the house of the deceased at Lodipur.  On arrival, they  were informed that the deceased was killed by  administering poison to her and the dead body was  hurriedly cremated.  She stated that she received a letter  (Ext.2) by post written by the deceased Sanju in her own  signature.  She also stated that her daughter complained  about the torture and harassment by the accused  persons.  She stated that thereafter they met the accused  persons and told them that they would further give  Rs.18,000/- to them.  She further stated that she was  not even informed about the death of her daughter by the  family members of the deceased.

       The prosecution also examined Anita Devi, sister-in- law of the deceased as PW5.  She stated that after the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

marriage, her sister-in-law (deceased) came back to her  house after eight days.  The deceased told them that her  husband and in-laws were giving her beatings for not  bringing TV, motor-cycle and an amount of Rs.20,000/-.   She also stated that on   persuasion,  the husband of the  deceased had taken her back.  She also stated that her  sister-in-law was killed by administering poison to her.

       The prosecution also examined Pawan Kumar  Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police as PW6.  He  stated that the FIR Ext.3 was in his hand-writing and he  proved the same.  He also stated that he recorded the  statement of Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Mukhiya, who  had stated that it was wrong to say that the dowry items  were demanded by the accused persons.  He gave a  medical certificate to show that Saraswati Devi, mother- in-law of the deceased had been sick from 5.11.1993 to  3.12.1993 and was under treatment at Calcutta.  He also  stated that the deceased Sanju was treated by Dr. K.N.  Singh and Dr. B. K. Jain of Arrah on 15.11.1993 and  16.11.1993.  In his statement, he tried to lay the  foundation that there had been no demand of dowry  articles by the accused persons.

       The appellants in defence had examined Sudama  Singh, DW1, Ram Chhabila Singh, DW2, Dr. B.K. Jain,  DW3 and Jagat Narayan Singh, DW4.  The accused Ram  Badan Sharma was also examined as DW5.  

       The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah  carefully examined the entire evidence on record.    The  prosecution had examined six witnesses.  The trial court  after analyzing the entire evidence on record came to the  categoric finding that the prosecution was able to prove  that Sanju Kumari was killed within seven years of her  marriage for not fulfilling the demands of dowry articles.  

       According to the requirement of Section 304-B IPC  and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial  court also examined whether there was evidence that the  deceased soon before the death was subjected to  harassment and cruelty in connection with the demands  for dowry.  On this issue also, the trial court carefully  analysed the evidence and came to a definite finding that  the prosecution was able to prove the fact that due to  demands of dowry, the deceased was subjected to  harassment before her death.  The trial court also  examined the manner in which the   death had occurred.   

       Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been inserted  with regard to presumption of dowry death. The Section  reads as under:- "113-B: Presumption as to dowry death-  When the question is whether a person has  committed the dowry death of a woman and it  is shown that soon before her death such  woman has been subjected by such person to  cruelty or harassment for, or in connection  with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall  presume that such person had caused the  dowry death.

Explanation \026 For the purposes of this section  "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as  in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

of 1860)."

The accused persons in their defence examined the  evidence of Dr. B.K. Jain and Dr. K.N. Singh.    Dr. B.K.  Jain, DW3, stated that he treated the deceased for the  disease of appendix and she remained in his treatment  from 15.11.1993 to 16.11.1993.  He referred her to  Surgeon but in the cross-examination, he admitted that  after 15.11.1993, he had not examined the deceased.   The defence failed to give any explanation why she was  not examined by any Surgeon after she was referred to by  DW3.  The trial court after examining the entire evidence  came to the conclusion that the death had not occurred  in the normal circumstances.  The trial court observed  that on the day of ’Chhath’ i.e. on 17.11.1993, the  deceased had gone to the house of accused Ram Badan  Sharma for taking ’Prasad’.  This is indicative of the fact  that till then the deceased was physically in good health.   DW1 further stated that after taking the ’Prasad’, she  started having acute pain in stomach and thereafter she  died.   

       The deceased’s parents were admittedly not even  informed about this unfortunate incident.  Only on  20.11.1993, they learnt about it from a Barber and then  they rushed to Lodipur.  On reaching Lodipur, they heard  that the deceased was administered poison in the Prasad.   DW1 clearly mentioned that the deceased had died after  taking the Prasad.  According to the trial court,  immediately after the death, the dead-body was hurriedly  disposed of and there was no autopsy of the dead body.   This is a very vital circumstance which according to the  trial court clearly led to the conclusion that the deceased  died in unnatural circumstances.  DW1 also admitted  that after giving the Prasad, the deceased was not given  any medical treatment.  The trial court also observed that  under the provisions of Section 113-B of the Evidence  Act, the prosecution has proved the presumption of  dowry death.  The trial court discarded the story of  return of ornaments by DW1 and DW2 as being not  convincing.  The trial court observed that the deceased  died in the circumstances narrated by DW1.  According  to the trial court, either it was a case of homicide or  suicide, in both the cases, the accused would be held  guilty for the offence under Section 304B IPC.  

       The trial court observed that admittedly the death  had occurred on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993.   The FIR was lodged at 7.00 a.m. on 20.11.1993.  The  parents and other family members of the deceased learnt  about her death from a Barber after three days of the  death.  The dead body was cremated hurriedly without  even giving any information to her parents and this  circumstance strengthens the case of prosecution that  the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances.   According to the trial court, involvement of Saraswati  Devi in this case was not established beyond reasonable  doubt.  She was not present on 17.11.1993 when PW1  visited the deceased.  DW1 stated that Saraswati Devi  was in Calcutta and there was no evidence that from  26.10.1993 to 17/18.11.1993, she remained in her  house.  In view of the evidence of PW1 that he remained  for two hours on the doors of the accused and only met  the accused Surya Kant Sharma and Ram Badan  Sharma.  Thereafter, he met the deceased Sanju Kumari

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

and he remained there for an hour.   He did not state  that he even saw Saraswati Devi in the house.  The trial  court was of the opinion that reasonable doubt arose  with regard to the involvement of mother-in-law of the  deceased Sanju Devi and, therefore, gave her benefit of  doubt.   

       The trial court came to a definite conclusion that  the prosecution had been able to prove the charges under  Sections 304-B and 201 IPC against the husband and  father-in-law of the deceased and convicted them under  Sections 304-B and 201 IPC.  The trial court sentenced  the accused to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment  for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.  They were also  sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two  years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The Court  further directed that both the sentences shall run  concurrently.  

       The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the  learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah, preferred  an appeal before the High Court.  The High Court  analysed the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions  Judge and the entire evidence on record.  It is not  necessary to repeat the findings of the High Court in  detail.  According to the findings of the trial court, it was  a clear case of demands of dowry and harassment on  account of not fulfilling the said demands and ultimately  the poison was administered to the deceased in the  ’Prasad’ within seven years of her marriage.   

       The High Court also came to the conclusion that the  husband and in-laws of the deceased had been  persistently demanding a colour TV, motor-cycle and  cash of Rs.20,000/-.  Due to the failure of her parents to  give dowry articles, the deceased was harassed and was  ultimately killed by administering poison to her by the  accused persons.  According to the High Court, clear  offences under Section 304-B and 201 I.P.C. were made  out against the accused persons.   

       The High Court observed that there was perceptible  nexus between the death of Sanju and dowry related  harassment or cruelty inflicted on her.  The High Court  also independently came to the conclusion that the  evidence of the prosecution witnesses manifestly reflected  that shortly after Sanju Kumari went to her in-laws  house after the marriage and returned to her parents  house only after eight days, she had been complaining to  her parents about torture and beating by the husband  and in-laws for not getting the dowry articles.  The  husband and in-laws of the deceased were not even  prepared to take the deceased back to their house for her  not bringing the dowry articles and it was after much  entreaties that the deceased was taken back to their  house.  The High Court gave particular reference to the  statement of Ramakant Chaudhary PW1 when he visited  Sanju Kumari’s house on the request of his mother-in- law on 17.11.1993.  Sanju Kumari had narrated her  woes to him apprehending danger to her life and this  must be construed to be cruelty and/or torture.  Though  other witnesses state about assault on Sanju Kumari,  even if that be not there, a definite conclusion can be  drawn that there was evidence of torture to the deceased  immediately preceding her death.  The interval elapsed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

between infliction of such harassment or cruelty and her  death was too narrow to be widened any more.  The High  Court after carefully examining the entire evidence on  record came to the definite conclusion regarding the guilt  of the accused persons and upheld the judgment of the  learned trial court.  Consequently, the appeal filed by the  appellants was dismissed.

       The appellants aggrieved by the impugned judgment  of the High Court have approached this Court in two  separate appeals.

       The learned counsel appearing for the appellants  submitted that there was no evidence to sustain the  conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B and  201 IPC.  The learned counsel also submitted there was  no material on record to attract Section 113-B of the  Evidence Act.   It was also submitted on behalf of the  appellants that the High Court erred in not applying the  strict test before relying on the circumstantial evidence to  pass the verdict of conviction.  It was also argued on  behalf of the appellants that the High Court was not  correct in rejecting the testimony of Dr. B.K. Jain DW3.   

       In these appeals, it was prayed that the Court must  consider the case sympathetically and on humanitarian  consideration, it was also prayed that the sentence of the  appellants be reduced to the period already undergone.                    The appellants have challenged the impugned  judgment of the High Court on the plea that they have  been erroneously convicted under Sections 304-B and  201 IPC.     

       When the evidence of the instant case is closely  examined, then the conclusion regarding the guilt of the  accused persons becomes irresistible.  There is an  overwhelming evidence to establish that there has been  persistent demand of dowry and because of non- fulfillment of the said demand, there was harassment,  humiliation and continuous beating of the deceased by  the accused persons.   In the instant case, as late as on  17.11.1993, Ramakant Chaudhary, PW1, at the instance  of his mother-in-law PW5, had visited the deceased to  enquire about her welfare.  When he reached the house  of the deceased initially the accused persons did not even  permit him to meet the deceased on the ground that until  their demands for dowry were fulfilled, they would not  permit any one to meet the deceased.  On persuasion,  Ramakant Chaudhary, PW1, was ultimately allowed to  meet the deceased.  The deceased narrated to her  brother-in-law, PW1, that she was being harassed  because the demands of dowry were not fulfilled.   Immediately thereafter, PW1 went and narrated the  entire story to the brother and mother of the deceased.  It  is extremely significant that within a few hours, poison  was administered to the deceased in the Prasad and she  died on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993.   According to the statement of PW1, the deceased died  after eating the ’Prasad’ and thereafter she was neither  taken to any doctor nor any treatment was given to her.    The most suspicious circumstance which supported the  story of the prosecution was that the news of the death of  the deceased was not sent to the parents of the deceased  who were living only a few miles away from the village of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

the accused.  The accused persons clandestinely, secretly  and hurriedly cremated the deceased without informing  the factum of death to the parents of the deceased.  This  circumstance strongly proved and lent immense  credibility to the prosecution version.  Only from a  Barber, on 20.11.1993 (after three days), the parents of  the deceased learnt that Sanju Kumari was killed by  administering the poison to her.   The deceased’s brother  and other relatives rushed to the village where they learnt  that the deceased was killed by administering the poison.

       In the instant case, the appellants were convicted  under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC.  Section 304-B IPC  reads as follows: "S.304-B. Dowry Death.\027(1) Where the death  of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily  injury or occurs otherwise than under normal  circumstances within seven years of her  marriage and it is shown that soon before her  death she was subjected to cruelty or  harassment by her husband or any relative of  her husband for, or in connection with, any  demand for dowry, such death shall be called  "dowry death", and such husband or relative  shall be deemed to have caused her death.

       Explanation.- For the purposes of this  sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same  meaning as in s. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition  Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

       (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall  be punished with imprisonment for a term  which shall not be less than seven years but  which may extend to imprisonment for life."

This Section was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by an  Act 43 of 1986 on 19.11.1986.

       There are three main ingredients of this offence; (a)  that, there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the  accused on that count; (b) that, the deceased died; and  (c) that, the death is under unnatural circumstances  within seven years of the marriage.  When these factors  were proved by reliable and cogent evidence, then the  presumption of dowry death under section 113-B of the  Evidence Act clearly arose.  The aforementioned  ingredients necessarily attract Section 304-B IPC.   Section 304-B is a special provision which was inserted  by an amendment of 1986 to deal with a large number of  dowry deaths taking place in the country.  In the instant  case, if the circumstances of the case are analyzed on the  touchstone of Section 304-B IPC, all the three basic  ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are present in the  instant case.  There has been persistent demand of dowry  and harassment, humiliation and physical violence and  beating by the husband and her in-laws. The deceased  died under unnatural circumstances within seven years  of the marriage.

       In our considered opinion, the trial court has  properly analyzed the evidence and justly convicted the  appellants under Section 304-B I.P.C.  The High Court  also examined the entire evidence on record and came to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

the same conclusion.  No infirmity can be found with the  impugned judgment of the High Court.   

       Looking to the seriousness of the matter, we also  independently examined the entire evidence on record.   On critical examination of the evidence, we also arrived  at the same conclusion.   The trial court was justified in  convicting the accused persons under Section 304-B IPC  and that the conviction of these two appellants has been  rightly upheld by the High Court.

       The appellants have also been convicted under  Section 201 IPC.  Section 201 reads as under: "S. 201. Causing disappearance of evidence  of offence, or giving false information to  screen offender.\027Whoever, knowing or  having reason to believe that an offence has  been committed, causes any evidence of the  commission of that offence to disappear, with  the intention of screening the offender from  legal punishment, or with that intention gives  any information respecting the offence which  he knows or believes to be false;

       if a capital offence.\027shall, if the offence  which he knows or believes to have been  committed is punishable with death, be  punished with imprisonment of either  description for a term which may extend to  seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

       if punishable with imprisonment for  life.\027and if the offence is punishable with  imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment  which may extend to ten years, shall be  punished with imprisonment of either  description for a term which may extend to  three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

       if punishable with less than ten years’  imprisonment.\027and if the offence is  punishable with imprisonment for any term  not extending to ten years, shall be punished  with imprisonment of the description provided  for the offence, for a term which may extend to  one-fourth part of the longest term of the  imprisonment provided for the offence, or with  fine, or with both."

       In the instant case, according to the prosecution,  the deceased was killed by administering poison to her  on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993.  Neither the  deceased was taken to any doctor nor any doctor was  called to examine her nor any kind of medical treatment  was given to the deceased.  This is extremely unnatural  human conduct.  The dead body was secretly and  clandestinely cremated causing disappearance of  evidence of offence, without even intimating the parents  of the deceased who were living only a few miles away  from their village.  They learnt about the murder of the  deceased from a Barber on 20.11.1993 after about three  days.  The appellants secretly and clandestinely cremated  the deceased to wipe out the entire evidence of murder.   This clearly attracted Section 201 IPC.  The trial court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

was wholly justified in convicting the appellants under  Section 201 IPC also.  The High Court was also justified  in affirming the judgment and order of the trial court.   

       We deem it appropriate to refer some of the  important cases dealing with Section 304-B IPC and  Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act.                  In Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat   & Others (1991) 4 SCC 298, this Court dealt with the  objects and philosophy behind enactment of Section 304- B IPC.  In this case, it has been mentioned that Section  304-B and the cognate provisions are meant for  eradication of the social evil of dowry which has been the  bane of Indian society and continues unabated.    For  eradication of social evil, effective steps can be taken by  the society itself and social sanctions of community can  be more deterrent, yet legal sanctions in the form of its  prohibition and punishment are some steps in that  direction.    

       The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was enacted for  this purpose.   The report of the Joint Committee of  Parliament quoted the observation of our first Prime  Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru to indicate the role of  Legislation in dealing with the social evil as under:         "Legislation cannot by itself normally  solve deep-rooted social problems.  One has to  approach them in other ways too, but  legislation is necessary and essential, so that it  may give that push and have that educative  factor as well as the legal sanctions behind it  which help public opinion to be given a certain  shape."

Prime Minister Nehru proved prophetic because despite  various Legislations the menace of dowry deaths is  unfortunately increasing at an alarming speed.   Ordinarily, Legislations are based on public opinion, but  at times even Legislations also create public opinion.   Regrettably, despite many Legislations, we have not been  able to control dowry deaths.  Perhaps greater social  awareness and more severe legislative measures are  urgently required to curb the menace of dowry related  deaths.  To our information, in no other civilized country  similar problem of this magnitude exists.  This is indeed  a slur on our great heritage, ancient cultural and  civilization.

       This Court in Hem Chand v. State of Haryana  (1994) 6 SCC 727, dealt with the basic ingredient of  Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence  Act.   This Court, in this case, observed as follows:         "A reading of Section 304-B IPC would  show that when a question arises whether a  person has committed the offence of dowry  death of a woman what all that is necessary is  it should be shown that soon before her  unnatural death, which took place within  seven years of the marriage, the deceased had  been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or  harassment for or in connection with demand  for dowry.  If that is shown then the court  shall presume that such a person has caused  the dowry death.  It can therefore be seen that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

irrespective of the fact whether such person is  directly responsible for the death of the  deceased or not by virtue of the presumption,  he is deemed to have committed the dowry  death if there were such cruelty or harassment  and that if the unnatural death has occurred  within seven years from the date of marriage.   Likewise there is a presumption under Section  113-B of the Evidence Act as to the dowry  death.  It lays down that the court shall  presume that the person who has subjected  the deceased wife to cruelty before her death  caused the dowry death if it is shown that  before her death, such woman had been  subjected, by the accused, to cruelty or  harassment in connection with any demand  for dowry.  Practically this is the presumption  that has been incorporated in Section 304-B  I.P.C. also.  It can therefore be seen that  irrespective of the fact whether the accused  has any direct connection with the death or  not, he shall be presumed to have committed  the dowry death provided the other  requirements mentioned above are satisfied."   

       In cases where it is proved that it was neither a  natural death nor an accidental death, then the obvious  conclusion has to be that it was an unnatural death  either homicidal or suicidal.   But, even assuming that it  is a case of suicide, even then it would be death which  had occurred in unnatural circumstances.  Even in such  a case, Section 304-B IPC is attracted.  

       In Satvir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab &  Another (2001) 8 SCC 633, this Court examined the  meaning of the words "soon before her death".  The Court  observed that the legislative object in providing such a  radius of time by employing the words "soon before her  death" is to emphasize the idea that her death, should, in  all probabilities, have been the aftermath of such cruelty  or harassment.  In other words, there should be a close  and perceptible nexus between death and the dowry- related harassment or cruelty inflicted on the deceased.     

       This Court in Hira Lal & Others v. State (Govt. of  NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 reiterated that Section 304- B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were  inserted with a view to combat the increasing menace of  dowry deaths.    Perhaps the Legislations are outcome of  public opinion and a comprehensive 91st Report on  "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform: Amending the Hindu  Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the  Indian Evidence Act, 1872" submitted on 10.8.1983 by  the Law Commission of India.  In the introductory  chapter of the report, it is mentioned that the last few  months have witnessed an alarming increase in the  number of cases in which married women die in  circumstances which, to say the least, are highly  suspicious.  In the popular mind, these deaths have  come to be associated with dowry, which is why, in  popular parlance, they have come to be called "dowry- deaths".  Even after more than two decades of submitting  the said report and enactments of new Legislations,  unfortunately cases of dowry deaths are increasing.  In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

the report, deep concern has been shown that once a  serious crime is committed, detection is a difficult matter  and still more difficult is successful prosecution of the  offender.  Crimes that lead to dowry deaths are almost  invariably committed within the safe precincts of a  residential house.  The criminal is a member of the  family; other members of the family are either guilty  associates in crime, or silent but conniving witnesses to  it.  In any case, the shackles of the family are so strong  that truth may not come out of the chains.  There would  be no other eye witnesses, except for members of the  family.  Perhaps to meet a situation of this kind, the  Legislature enacted Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B  of the Evidence Act.    

       In Hira Lal’s case (supra), this Court observed that  the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a  natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the  purview of the ’death occurring otherwise than in normal  circumstances’.   The expression ’soon before’ is relevant  for invoking Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the  Evidence Act.    (See also: Dhian Singh & Another v.  State of Punjab (2004) 7 SCC 759, Sarojini  v. State of  M.P. (1993) Supp. (4)  SCC 632, State of Karnataka v.  M. V. Manjunathegowda & Another (2003) 2 SCC 188,  Muthu Kutty & Another v. State (2005) 9 SCC 113,  Harjit Singh  v. State of Punjab  (2006) 1 SCC 463,  Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388  and State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh & Others  (1991) 3  SCC 1).

       On consideration of the law as crystallized in the  decided cases of this Court and evidence on record, we  are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has  successfully proved its case against the appellants.  We,  therefore, concur with the view of the courts below and  affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellants.   These appeals are accordingly dismissed.